• Varyk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    139
    ·
    1 month ago

    Thats a teosinte seed; teosinte is the grass ancestor of corn that still grows in Mexico.

      • adr1an@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        30 days ago

        Ancestor is not the same as non GMO. One could say that primates in Madagascar are ancestors to human. But there’s no human population that is either GMO or went through the process of selective breeding.

          • Sightline@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            30 days ago

            Ok… but the reason why people don’t like GMOs is because they’re bred to be doused in pesticides. They also can cross-pollinate with non-GMO’s to create non viable seeds among other things.

            • ArachnidMania@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              edit-2
              30 days ago

              *Some

              Is the keyword, GMO purposes can be vast, and not all are just for pesticides or non-fertility.

              Some are even used to be more pest resistant so it can be less reliant on pesticides.

            • Doom@ttrpg.network
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              29 days ago

              GMO is a misconstrued term much like free range or grass fed or no trans fats.

              Don’t step on the rake.

        • Aniki@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 days ago

          selective breeding

          I wonder, isn’t sexual selection a form of “selective breeding”?

  • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    1 month ago

    Not sure what this is trying to say, but this seems to conflate genetic modification with selective breeding!

      • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        30 days ago

        By the individual definitions of the words, yes. However in actual use, genetically modified means modification through direct methods such as chemical agents, enzymes, or electroporation.

        Edit:

        This isn’t my opinion. Here is an article in Nature: https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetically-modified-organisms-gmos-transgenic-crops-and-732/

        You can selectively breed rabbits for 1000 years and not get a glow in the dark rabbit that can be made in a week in a lab.

        https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/13/glow-in-dark-rabbits-scientists

        • Signtist@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          30 days ago

          Sure, but you could selectively breed rabbits for 1,000,000 years and get a glow in the dark rabbit; GFP is just a protein like any other - if you painstakingly selectively breed for a specific DNA sequence, you’ll eventually get it regardless of your starting genetic pool. Classic selective breeding is a form of genetic modification - modern genetic modification methods are just way faster.

          I agree that we don’t currently know enough about genetics to utilize genetic modification without unforeseen side effects, and so there should be limitations on what we’re able to genetically modify until we can show that we understand it well enough to meaningfully minimize potential issues, but those same issues occur with selective breeding - they’re, again, just slower.

          • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            30 days ago

            That’s all beside the point that actual scientists use GMO to mean directly genetically modified and not selective breeding.

            The speed of a technology is a substantial difference.

            Claiming selective breeding is GMO because they are both artificial genetic modifications is like saying a horse and an Boeing 747 are both just transportation.

              • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                30 days ago

                And like GM technically including selective breeding if you look at the words individually, no one would confuse getting their New York MTA pass as including horse rides even though Transportation is the T in MTA. Actual scientists use GM to mean methods other than natural or selective breeding.

            • Signtist@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              30 days ago

              The speed is substantial, yes. That was my point. They are essentially the same; one simply uses the organism’s own natural genetic variation mechanisms, while the other introduces new variations manually. Yes, that is a difference that requires separation of the two in certain circumstances, but not when it comes to whether or not we’ve genetically modified all strains of modern agricultural corn, GMO-labeled or not.

              Claiming selective breeding is the same as producing a GMO is like saying an eagle and a Boeing 747 are both utilizing mechanisms that allow them to fly, which is true.

              • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                30 days ago

                They are essentially the same;

                A bullet shot from a gun is not the same as a bullet moved a few inches every year.

                We already know about the devastating effects of invasive species where an animal was introduced to a new environment and had unexpected effects.

                but not when it comes to whether or not we’ve genetically modified all strains of modern agricultural corn, GMO-labeled or not.

                It’s the details that matter. It can take decades before side effects are noticed. Like DDT and now neonicotinoids. GMO could be better or worse. Saying it’s the same as natural selection is misleading which is why scientists use GM to mean direct gene modification, not natural or selective breeding.

                • Signtist@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  30 days ago

                  Again, selective breeding suffers from the same issue of introducing changes that can be detrimental to the organism itself and its place in the balance of the environment. Look at dog breeding as an example. Pugs were bred for a specific look, and that inadvertently caused them to have severe breathing issues. Dachshunds are another example, with many developing spinal issues over time. The difference, as I said before, is the speed; making a change causes unintended side effects - when you make a huge change quickly, it will produce more side effects than making a small change slowly will.

                  And… again… as I already said… there should be limitations to prevent rolling out new GMOs without specific testing for safety, both in a lab for potential problems to the organism or - in the event of an agricultural product - its consumers, as well as in the environment as a whole, to determine how it may affect the ecology if and when it is introduced. It may take decades to notice changes if the GMO is released immediately after being developed, but if testing protocols are made and followed, we should have no problem quickly spotting any issues before the organism is rolled out into the world.

                  Just like newly developed medicines need to go through rigorous testing to prevent things like the Thalidomide scandal that caused an immense amount of birth defects due to lax testing, new GMO’s will need to be tested as well. But, just like you likely understand the benefits of medicine for helping people suffering from various diseases, GMO’s can provide the same level of benefit to people suffering from malnutrition, among a wide range of other positive uses. The key is to study new developments to the point where we can spot and address issues. Throwing away the technology as a whole is not the answer.

        • Markus Sugarhill@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          30 days ago

          You cannot distinguish selective bread organisms from gene edited (think CRISPR) organisms. You also do not get glow the dark rabbits from it. But you can get the same result as with selective breeding over countless generations in one generation.

  • lemmyseizethemeans@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    Thanks to capitalism however we can re buy the seed every season and insure Monsantos earnings please the shareholders

    • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      30 days ago

      Thanks to assholes

      Ftfy

      Because we will never be free of assholes, regardless of the system.

      • jaywalker [they/them, any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        30 days ago

        But surely you can see how a system that rewards asshole behavior is part of the problem here? Maybe we’d have fewer assholes if the system didn’t reinforce the behavior and train new assholes every day. Maybe over time, over multiple generations, we could eliminate assholes almost completely

        • SaltySalamander@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          30 days ago

          There’s a reason we’ve never seen this mythical system you’re speaking of. People, in general, are assholes and will act in their own best interests every time.

  • sparkle@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    30 days ago

    Which person decided to domesticate that thing. Just like “hey I found this weird looking grass fruit wanna enslave it” and chief’s like “hell yeah of course I wanna enslave it!” and then they just ate increasingly beady grass for a few thousand years

    • No_Eponym@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      30 days ago

      Wrong, the grass enslaved humanity. It was like “I hear wheat is doing well, I wanna get a hominid slave species that will protect me from pests and propagate my genetic line whilst literally clearing away all competing plants for miles.”

      And corn got their slaves, and as the plant relaxed over successive generations they grew more bready and delicious because the only predator eating them was also ensuring their monocrop dominance so get fat and whatever who cares!

    • Revan343@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      30 days ago

      They just realized it was edible, thought to save some to plant, and then the big idea was whenever they realized they should save the biggest ones to replant

    • stupidcasey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      30 days ago

      You need to stop, you’re too corny for anyone too like you, and honestly when you showed everyone cream corn at the family gathering it was not what anyone wanted to see, and really pop corn? Nobody should ever want pop corn. Anyway if you really like corn you can have it at home, but not while we’re eating out.

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      30 days ago

      Golden rice does neither of these two things. Not that the facts matter when it comes to our irrational fear of gmos.

          • newerAccountWhoDis [they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            29 days ago

            What hello Kitty was trying to say is that most people are not objecting GMO but the way it’s used under capitalism, either to sell more pesticides (e.g. glyphosate), to make farmers dependent on seeds via patents, or both. Just because there’s highly idealistic research doesn’t mean it’s compatible with our current system.

            • EatATaco@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              29 days ago

              Then why not say that rather than the patently false claim that it’s only for pesticides? You also express some more misconceptions: seeds, regardless of how they are made are patented, are rarely reused farmers pretty much always buy new seeds. This is not an issue limited to gmos. Parents are not just for GMO plants. Again, a separate issue.

              You’re issue seems to be with capitalism, not GMO a tool used by capitalists to make more money.

      • kralk@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        29 days ago

        Golden rice doesn’t actually exist, not in any meaningful sense

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          29 days ago

          It’s widespread adoption, almost certainly resulting in the unnecessary suffering of millions of people, has been hampered by anti-scienitific fanatics. So let’s not confuse that with there being something wrong with golden rice or it not existing.

          But if that isn’t enough, we have fast growing salmon, non browning apples, and pink pineapple which are all gmos on the market that don’t have to do with pesticides or pest resistance. If we include ones that are simply resistant to viruses, then the list grows substantially more.

  • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    29 days ago

    We should recognize the tremendous efforts of prehistoric American botanists for selectively breeding so many major food crops. Maize, tomatoes, peppers, potatoes, squash, beans, avocado, cacao, peanuts, papaya, and pineapples are among the many crops first developed in pre-1492 America.

  • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    Do people use breed and generically modify interchangeably? Are they actually the same

    • SteveFromMySpace@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Selective breeding is a way to pick out the genetic traits you prefer so technically yes but it’s not how people typically use “genetically modified.”

    • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      30 days ago

      No they are not the same. GMO is defined as using genetic engineering to modify an organism. Breeding, or recombination, does not qualify as GMO. But I’m sure there are a lot of people that lump breeding with genetic engineering, so it’s really all in who you ask.

    • Ekky@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      We get to choose the genes when genetically modifying, and it usually takes a few years (plus health metrics and research once complete).

      Contrary, when selectively breeding we can breed for traits which we are not guaranteed to actually get, and it takes a few decades (plus health metrics and research once complete).

      • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        when selectively breeding we can breed for traits which we are not guaranteed to actually get, and it takes a few decades (plus health metrics and research once complete).

        Nobody will make you confirm your randomly bred variant is actually healthy, or even non-harmful, and you can sell it without publishing a thing.